beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”). On the same day, the Defendant wired KRW 20 million from the said Agricultural Cooperative Account to the National Bank Account under the name of C.
B. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff sent the Kakao Stockholm message to the Defendant requesting the return of the said KRW 20 million.
C. Around February 2014, C drafted a certificate of borrowing that C borrowed KRW 36.8 million from the Plaintiff (However, the date was written on March 15, 2013), and D guaranteed C’s debt owed to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion
A. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is due for the payment of KRW 20 million to the Defendant.
5. The defendant asserts that he/she is obligated to pay the above loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff, since he/she was designated and lent as a lieutenant.
The Defendant immediately remitted KRW 20 million to C, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was well aware that C borrowed the above KRW 20 million, and thus, the said monetary loan agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and C. Even if not, C should be deemed to have exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation of the instant loan by drawing up and delivering a loan certificate to the effect that C would repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff around February 2014.
B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the debtor's scam of the instant loan 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff and remitted the said money to the account under the name of C, and in light of the fact that C does not have any particular impediment to transaction, such as using the account under the name of C, etc., C is a loan of this case.